Mexico’s Foreign PolicyMexico’s PoliticsMexico and Trump
9 Jul
by Luis Rubio.

Editor’s note: Mr. Rubio is a political analyst and Chairman of México Evalúa.

—

Trump sees no need to adhere to the traditional forms and rules of diplomacy. His “mandate” is clear, and he assumes it as absolute truth. If one adds to that his tactical way of acting (with no strategy whatsoever), the result is a bull in a China shop who recognizes no limits to his actions—except what works for him. If one observes how he has handled matters like Russia-Ukraine, China, Iran, Canada, NATO, etc., it becomes evident that he strikes first and then looks for a way to negotiate an exit. Those who have succeeded in dealing with him are the ones who offer a dignified way out, as has happened with NATO, China, and even Iran. That rather obvious lesson has not been learned by Claudia Sheinbaum’s government.

For Trump, there is a specific set of objectives he wants to achieve, which are key to his electoral base. Among those, Mexico plays a central role in two: migration and drugs, especially fentanyl. Biden promoted legislation regarding fentanyl, which Trump is now using to attack financial transactions and institutions allegedly involved in the commercialization, financing, and money laundering related to this drug.

Trump and his operators have a univocal and simplistic (not to mention oversimplified) view of the issues they prioritize. They fervently believe they can solve the fentanyl problem by bombing a few labs, or the migration issue by expelling people who are illegally present in the US. Their actions involve no consideration of causes, market dynamics, or whether the proposed actions are susceptible to solving the problem. Trump believes he has the power and is convinced he can use it to solve these issues—by force if necessary.

If one looks at how he operates, it’s fairly obvious how to respond: it took Canada one day to modify a tax law (in this case, on digital transactions) to resume trade negotiations with the US. NATO members offered to increase spending to 5% of their GDP in defense, which appeased Trump, regardless of the fact that the promise wouldn’t take effect until 2035.

The point is that it is possible to negotiate with Trump if one studies him carefully and develops ties with key players in Washington and in critical areas of his electoral base. It’s not rocket science.

Except, apparently, for the Mexican government. In addition to lacking a competent team in Washington and in the (politically) key US cities, the history of the bilateral relationship is rich with examples showing that the way to solve problems is by proposing solutions—not by making statements to the local audience like “we haven’t been given any information.” If this path continues, the entire Mexican financial sector could end up in uncontrollable chaos.

When Mexico takes the initiative—as it did with NAFTA or after September 11—the Americans respond and act. They don’t focus on or care to understand what Mexico’s internal interests and dynamics are. When there is a willingness within Mexico to understand and solve problems—both those observed internally and those raised by the US—the Americans respond. Conversely, when Mexico reverts to traditional nationalist posturing, the US response becomes an incentive to persist with a strategy of pressure, because it works. Again: it’s not rocket science.

The problems of Mexico will not be solved by the US government; rather, they cannot be solved by the U.S. government. What the US government can do—including Trump’s—is help solve those problems if Mexico acknowledges them, accepts responsibility, and proposes solutions. For example, one can (and should) criticize President Felipe Calderón for the security strategy he adopted, but no one can deny that it was a Mexican initiative proposed to the US government, which was more than willing to support it. Some parts worked, others didn’t, but as with NAFTA, the U.S. government responded to a sensible proposal from the Mexican side.

President Sheinbaum clearly does not know this history, nor does she have a team in the US dedicated to informing her and lobbying with key actors. Perhaps more importantly, she still doesn’t understand that the problem is Mexico’s—and the key to solving Mexico’s problems lies in Mexico. The difference with Trump is that he has no filters or limits—unless he finds receptiveness on the Mexican side.